Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord's Supper

Transcript

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord's Supper · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Reformed Thinking.
• 0:01
  Today we're diving into something really central to
• 0:05
  Christian life, the Lords Supper.
• 0:08
  It's the right that continues, you know, after baptism
• 0:10
  initiates you into the visible church.
• 0:12
  Right, the continuing right and Christ himself set it up a for
• 0:17
  the church to remember his death.
• 0:18
  That's the core, a commemoration established by Christ.
• 0:21
  But here's the paradox, isn't it?
• 0:23
  It's something almost every Christian group does this this
• 0:26
  common factor. Yeah, it should unite, but.
• 0:28
  Historically, oh boy, different interpretations have really kept
• 0:33
  groups apart, sometimes tragically so.
• 0:36
  Absolutely. So our mission today, if you
• 0:39
  will, is to sort of unpack that. We want to look at the big
• 0:42
  things everyone does agree on. The consensus?
• 0:45
  Right, the six essential agreements and then, well, then
• 0:48
  we have to tackle the disagreements, the big 5 points
• 0:51
  of conflict. And that leads us into the four
• 0:53
  major historical views, doesn't it?
• 0:55
  Catholic, Lutheran. Reformed Zwinglian trying to
• 1:00
  figure out what presence and efficacy actually mean.
• 1:03
  Exactly how did they try to solve these puzzles?
• 1:05
  OK, let's start positive the common ground before things got
• 1:09
  really philosophical and argumentative.
• 1:13
  Yeah, there's a surprising amount of unity on the basics,
• 1:15
  the what and why of the practice itself.
• 1:18
  These agreements really shape it for almost everyone.
• 1:21
  Hashtag, tag establishment by Christ, first point.
• 1:24
  And it's crucial Jesus himself started this.
• 1:28
  It wasn't a later church. Invention, it's authority, comes
• 1:30
  directly from him. Precisely.
• 1:32
  And we see this pop up everywhere in the early
• 1:34
  writings. Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22.
• 1:37
  They all have accounts of Jesus at that last meal instituting
• 1:40
  it. And what really strikes me is
• 1:43
  Paul, First Corinthians 11, he lays it out in detail, saying he
• 1:46
  received this tradition and passed it on.
• 1:49
  And his letters were circulating well before the Gospels were
• 1:52
  even written down, right like. Several years before Mark, yeah,
• 1:54
  Which tells you this wasn't some after thought, it was there from
• 1:57
  the absolute beginning of the church's practice.
• 1:59
  So OK, maybe we can't reconstruct the exact words
• 2:01
  Jesus used second by second. Probably not.
• 2:04
  But the fact that he established it, that he commanded it, that's
• 2:08
  certain. It wasn't just for those
• 2:09
  disciples then. It was for well, for us now.
• 2:12
  An institution for future generations.
• 2:14
  Definitely. Hashtag tag, tag the necessity
• 2:17
  of repetition. And that flows right into the
• 2:19
  second agreement. It has to be repeated.
• 2:21
  It wasn't a one off symbolic meal, it's the.
• 2:23
  Continuing ordinance, Yes. And the command is clear.
• 2:27
  Do this in remembrance of me. Luke records it.
• 2:31
  Paul repeats it. It's an authoritative
• 2:34
  instruction. A binding command for the.
• 2:36
  Like Paul gives us the duration, doesn't he?
• 2:38
  He says we proclaim the Lord's death.
• 2:40
  Until he comes. First Corinthians 11.26.
• 2:43
  Right. So it spans the entire church
• 2:44
  age. It connects us right now back to
• 2:47
  his death and forward to his return.
• 2:49
  And you know, practically speaking, we need that
• 2:51
  repetition. We're forgetful doctrines, even
• 2:54
  central ones at the atonement, and they can just fade into the
• 2:57
  background, become sort of assumed knowledge.
• 3:00
  The supper forces us to bring it back.
• 3:02
  Consciously. Exactly.
• 3:03
  To reflect on it actively keep it from becoming just wallpaper
• 3:07
  theology. Hashtag tag tag a form of
• 3:09
  proclamation. OK, third agreement.
• 3:11
  Everyone agrees the right is the very least a proclamation.
• 3:17
  It sets forth Christ's death. Like a dramatization of the
• 3:20
  gospel message, A visible word. Yeah, that's a good way to put
• 3:24
  it. And it proclaims in like 3
• 3:26
  dimensions of time. OK, explain that.
• 3:28
  Well, it points backward, obviously, to Christ's death on
• 3:31
  the cross, the historical event. The foundation, then it.
• 3:35
  Declares a present truth, the need for us right now to examine
• 3:39
  ourselves, to partake worthily. That reflective element and
• 3:43
  then. As we just said, it looks
• 3:44
  forward, proclaiming his death until he comes.
• 3:48
  Hope. And there's that other dimension
• 3:50
  too, the horizontal 1. Right.
• 3:52
  It symbolizes our fellowship, our connection with each other
• 3:54
  as believers, not just vertical with God.
• 3:57
  Hashtag, hashtag. A spiritual benefit to the
• 3:59
  partaker. Now, this one, this agreement
• 4:01
  might surprise some people given all the fighting later.
• 4:04
  Everyone agrees it's not just, you know, doing your duty.
• 4:06
  There's a spiritual benefit. Participating actually confers
• 4:10
  something positive spiritually. It's meant to nourish the
• 4:12
  believer. An occasion for spiritual
• 4:14
  growth, for strengthening our connection to Christ.
• 4:17
  Absolutely. It contributes to our spiritual
• 4:20
  vitality. Now, how it does that, and who
• 4:22
  gets it and under what conditions, that's where the
• 4:25
  arguments start. Yeah, that's the $1,000,000
• 4:27
  question later. But the basic idea that the Lord
• 4:30
  meets with his people in a special way here, that's broadly
• 4:33
  accepted as spiritual food. Hashtag tag.
• 4:35
  Tag restriction to followers of Christ.
• 4:38
  Fifth point, this isn't for just anybody.
• 4:42
  It's not like handing out Flyers on the street.
• 4:44
  Right, it signifies a relationship, discipleship.
• 4:47
  It shouldn't be administered indiscriminately.
• 4:48
  The original context shows this right.
• 4:51
  Jesus gave it to his inner circle, his disciples.
• 4:53
  And Judas had left by then, hadn't he?
• 4:55
  The group was, in a sense, purified.
• 4:57
  Good point and Paul hammers this home.
• 4:59
  In First Corinthians 11 he talks about self examination.
• 5:02
  Critically important. You have to partake in a worthy
• 5:04
  manner, and that means understanding what you're doing,
• 5:08
  believing, reflecting otherwise, Paul warns.
• 5:11
  It's actually harmful. An offense against Christ's body
• 5:14
  and blood. So it's restricted to, well,
• 5:17
  practicing believers, people who can actually do that self
• 5:20
  examination. People capable of serious
• 5:22
  reflection and who profess faith.
• 5:24
  Yes, hashtag tag tag the horizontal dimension.
• 5:27
  And the last area of consensus loops back to something you
• 5:30
  mentioned, the horizontal aspect.
• 5:33
  It's not just me and Jesus. Not at all.
• 5:35
  It's profoundly communal. It's for the body, the church.
• 5:39
  Paul in 1st Corinthians 10 makes a big deal about the one loaf,
• 5:42
  doesn't he? He does, he says, because we all
• 5:44
  partake of that one loaf which represents Christ's body.
• 5:48
  We are one body. So if there are divisions,
• 5:52
  factions, or disregard for other believers like the Corinthians
• 5:55
  were doing some eating while others went hungry.
• 5:58
  It completely undermines the meaning of the supper.
• 6:00
  It contradicts the unity it's supposed to display.
• 6:02
  So it has to be practiced together as a gathered
• 6:05
  community, not in isolation. That unity is integral to its
• 6:08
  meaning. OK, so that's the foundation. 6
• 6:10
  points of pretty solid agreement on the what and why.
• 6:13
  Structure. Purpose Who it's for.
• 6:15
  But now, Now we hit the wall. The disagreements start when we
• 6:20
  ask how what's actually happening with the bread and
• 6:23
  wine, and what's the precise benefit?
• 6:25
  This is where the metaphysics comes in, and honestly, where
• 6:27
  centuries of debate really ignited.
• 6:30
  We need to tread carefully here. The absolute core issue, maybe
• 6:34
  the issue is Jesus's words. This is my body.
• 6:38
  Simple words, profound disagreement.
• 6:41
  How literally do we take them? Well, taking them absolutely
• 6:44
  literally, it creates some significant conceptual hurdles
• 6:48
  right from the start at the Last Supper itself.
• 6:50
  Explain that if Jesus meant the bread was his physical body
• 6:54
  right then. Then his physical human body
• 6:56
  would have been in two places at once, sitting there talking to.
• 6:59
  Them and also somehow in the bread he was holding.
• 7:01
  Exactly. And for those of us in the
• 7:02
  Reformed tradition who believe the Incarnation meant Christ's
• 7:05
  human nature was localized, that's a problem.
• 7:08
  It seems to undermine the very nature of the incarnation.
• 7:11
  Denying the limitations he took on in his humanity.
• 7:15
  And that problem doesn't go away when the Church continues the
• 7:18
  practice. In fact, it gets tangled up
• 7:20
  with, well, Greek philosophy. Yes, Aristotle, Substance and
• 7:25
  accidents. You can't really understand the
• 7:27
  Catholic or Lutheran views without grasping this
• 7:30
  distinction. It's key, Aristotle talked about
• 7:33
  the underlying reality of a its substance, what it truly is.
• 7:36
  Like this is bread, its essence is breadness, if you like.
• 7:40
  Right. And then there are the
• 7:41
  accidents. The qualities we perceive with
• 7:43
  our senses. The shape, the color, the taste,
• 7:46
  the texture. So for my coffee cup, the
• 7:48
  substance is ceramic. Maybe the accidents are that
• 7:51
  it's white, smooth, holds liquid, has a handle.
• 7:56
  Good analogy. Now, the traditional Catholic
• 7:58
  view, which we'll detail more soon, says the substance of the
• 8:01
  bread and wine completely changes into Christ's body and
• 8:04
  blood. But the accidents, the things we
• 8:06
  perceive, stay the same. It still looks, tastes, feels
• 8:10
  like bread and wine. Which leads to philosophical
• 8:12
  questions, right? How can the substance of blood
• 8:14
  exist without any of its usual accidents?
• 8:16
  No redness, no liquid texture. Or, for the Lutheran view, how
• 8:20
  can 2 distinct physical substances, bread and Christ's
• 8:23
  body, occupy the exact same space at the same time?
• 8:26
  These aren't trivial points. They were major sticking points
• 8:30
  and because of these difficulties, many, particularly
• 8:32
  in the Reformed camp, concluded the language must be figurative.
• 8:36
  So this is my body, means this represents my body or this
• 8:39
  signifies. My body, essentially, yes.
• 8:42
  But we have to be careful here too.
• 8:43
  We shouldn't swing so far that we end up with what some call
• 8:48
  the doctrine of the real absence.
• 8:50
  Good caution, Christ did promise to be with us when we gather.
• 8:52
  Matthew 18.20. Right.
• 8:54
  So there is a special presence, a meeting with Christ in the
• 8:57
  Supper. It's just likely, well,
• 9:00
  influential, maybe conveyed by the spirit rather than a change
• 9:05
  in the physical substance of the elements.
• 9:06
  A real encounter, but not necessarily metaphysical
• 9:09
  transformation of bread and wine.
• 9:10
  We approach expecting to meet with him.
• 9:12
  OK. Second, major division efficacy.
• 9:15
  What does the supper actually do for the person partaking, and
• 9:18
  how guaranteed is that effect? We can sort of boil down the
• 9:22
  historical views into three main camps on this.
• 9:24
  Go ahead. First, there's the idea that the
• 9:26
  right itself conveys grace almost automatically, sometimes
• 9:29
  called ex appear apparado from the work having been warped.
• 9:32
  The ritual itself produces the effect regardless of the
• 9:35
  participants Interstate, basically.
• 9:37
  Right then, the second view is that the right is more of an
• 9:41
  instrument. It helps create an encounter
• 9:43
  with Christ. The benefit comes from that
• 9:46
  encounter which the Supper facilitates.
• 9:47
  So the right is the means, the encounter is the goal, and the
• 9:51
  benefit comes from the encounter.
• 9:53
  Seems like it. And the third view is that it's
• 9:56
  primarily a reminder, a proclamation, like a visible
• 10:00
  sermon. A sign pointing to Christ's
• 10:02
  work, Yeah. And in this view, any spiritual
• 10:05
  benefit depends entirely on the participants response, their
• 10:08
  faith, their understanding, their acceptance.
• 10:11
  Like hearing a sermon, you only benefit if you listen to,
• 10:13
  understand, and believe other. Otherwise it's just.
• 10:15
  Words and Paul's warning to the Corinthians seems crucial here.
• 10:18
  He makes it clear the benefit is not automatic.
• 10:21
  Absolutely not, he says. People were getting sick, even
• 10:23
  dying, because they partook without discerning the Lord's
• 10:26
  body, without proper reflection. So that confirms it.
• 10:30
  You need a correct understanding of what it means, and you need
• 10:32
  an appropriate response in faith.
• 10:34
  Which circles back to that need for rigorous self examination.
• 10:38
  It's not magic, it's an occasion for recommitment, for faith to
• 10:42
  be active. OK.
• 10:43
  So these two big fault lines, presence and efficacy, are what
• 10:47
  the major historical traditions try to navigate.
• 10:50
  They develop distinct systems. And comparing these 4 views,
• 10:53
  Catholic Lutheran reforms Wingley and really shows how
• 10:56
  they grappled with those core questions, often using that
• 10:59
  philosophical language we talked about hashtag, hashtag, the
• 11:02
  traditional Roman Catholic view. Let's start with the traditional
• 11:05
  Roman Catholic position formalized at the Council of
• 11:07
  Trent on presence. The keyword is
• 11:10
  transubstantiation. We touched on this the idea that
• 11:14
  the priest's words of consecration change the very
• 11:16
  substance, the essential reality of the bread and wine, the.
• 11:20
  Clip We changed into the literal physical body and blood of
• 11:22
  Christ while the accidents, the appearance, taste, texture
• 11:27
  remain the same. And importantly, they believe
• 11:30
  the whole Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity is present in
• 11:33
  every single particle of the consecrated bread and every drop
• 11:36
  of the wine. Yes, that's key, which
• 11:38
  historically led to practices like adoration of the reserved
• 11:41
  host. And for efficacy, how does it
• 11:44
  work? The Mass is understood as a
• 11:46
  sacrificial act. It's seen as a representation,
• 11:50
  an offering of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, made
• 11:53
  present again on the altar by the priest.
• 11:55
  And this sacrifice is considered propitiatory.
• 11:57
  It helps atone for sins. Specifically for venial sins,
• 12:02
  the lesser sins committed since the last confession, it's seen
• 12:06
  as applying the merits of Christ's death.
• 12:08
  And this whole system depends entirely on safrodotalism,
• 12:11
  doesn't it? Absolutely.
• 12:12
  Only a validly ordained priest standing in Apostolic secession
• 12:16
  has the power to confect the sacrament.
• 12:19
  If anyone else says the words, nothing happens.
• 12:21
  It stays bread and wine. Which also explains why for
• 12:24
  centuries the cup was often withheld from the laity.
• 12:27
  If the whole Christ is in the bread, it wasn't strictly
• 12:30
  necessary and it avoided the risk of spilling the consecrated
• 12:33
  blood. That was part of the reasoning,
• 12:35
  yes. Hashtag, hashtag the Lutheran
• 12:36
  view. OK, moving to Luther, he also
• 12:38
  insisted on a literal This is my body.
• 12:41
  He couldn't let go of that, But he hated transubstantiation.
• 12:44
  Violently rejected it. Called it Aristotelian
• 12:47
  sophistry. Basically, he didn't think he
• 12:49
  needed that philosophical framework to believe the words.
• 12:52
  So how did he explain the physical presence without
• 12:56
  transubstantiation? He argued that Christ's body and
• 12:59
  blood are physically present in, with, and under the elements of
• 13:03
  bread and wine. The bread remains bread, the
• 13:06
  wine remains wine. But Christ's physical body and
• 13:08
  blood are Co located with them. In some way, yes.
• 13:13
  The analogy often used, though Lutheran's don't always love the
• 13:15
  term. Consubstantiation is like heat
• 13:18
  in a red hot iron poker. Ah.
• 13:20
  OK, the iron is still iron, but the fire permeates it
• 13:23
  completely. Exactly so the communicant
• 13:25
  receives both the physical bread and wine and the physical body
• 13:29
  and blood of Christ simultaneously.
• 13:30
  And this leads to Luther's idea of mandication.
• 13:33
  What's that? Mandication means the actual
• 13:35
  physical eating of Christ's body and drinking of his blood.
• 13:38
  Luther pointed to John 6. Unless you eat the flesh of the
• 13:41
  Son of Man and drink his blood and took it very literally in
• 13:44
  the context of the supper. And crucially, he believed
• 13:48
  everyone who takes the elements receives the physical body and
• 13:51
  blood, even unbelievers. Yes, mandicatio and dignorum,
• 13:55
  the eating by the unworthy, but only believers received the
• 13:59
  spiritual benefit, forgiveness, strength and faith.
• 14:02
  And on efficacy, he rejected the mass as a sacrifice.
• 14:05
  Absolutely no repeated sacrifice.
• 14:07
  Yeah, the benefit comes through faith receiving the Word, which
• 14:10
  is proclaimed and sealed in the sacrament.
• 14:12
  It's not automatic, and it's not the priest's action, but
• 14:15
  Christ's promise that makes the presence real.
• 14:18
  No sacerdotalism needed. Hashtag tag hack the Reformed
• 14:22
  view. Calvinistic.
• 14:23
  All right now to the Reformed view largely shaped by Calvin.
• 14:26
  Here we see a decisive break from any kind of localized
• 14:29
  physical presence of Christ in the elements.
• 14:31
  Yes, the whole idea of physically eating Christ's flesh
• 14:34
  and blood was seen as well, frankly absurd and pastorally
• 14:38
  unhelpful and theologically problematic regarding Christ's
• 14:41
  descended human nature. So how is Christ present then,
• 14:44
  if not physically? It's described as a spiritual or
• 14:47
  dynamic presence. The key is that Christ's human
• 14:51
  body remains ascended in heaven at the right hand of the Father
• 14:55
  that maintains the integrity of His finished work and ascension.
• 14:58
  OK, so he's not physically coming down into the bread, no.
• 15:02
  But his influence, his life giving power, his virtue is
• 15:06
  genuinely conveyed to the believing communicant by the
• 15:09
  Holy Spirit. That's where the sun analogy
• 15:11
  comes in, isn't it? Right, Calvin used it.
• 15:13
  The sun stays physically in the sky, millions of miles away.
• 15:17
  But it's light and heat are truly objectively present and
• 15:20
  effective here on Earth, giving life.
• 15:22
  Exactly so. The Holy Spirit bridges the gap,
• 15:25
  uniting the believer to the whole Christ, including his
• 15:28
  humanity in heaven, and spiritually nourishing them
• 15:30
  through the Supper. And the efficacy, what's
• 15:32
  happening? The elements signify and seal
• 15:35
  the promises of the Gospel. They aren't empty symbols.
• 15:39
  They are divinely appointed signs that assure the believer
• 15:41
  of their union with Christ and their participation in all His
• 15:44
  benefits. Like a seal on a legal document
• 15:47
  confirming its validity. Good analogy.
• 15:50
  The Westminster Confession puts it well.
• 15:52
  The body and blood are as really but spiritually present to the
• 15:58
  faith of believers as the elements themselves are to their
• 16:01
  outward senses. So there's a real, objective
• 16:04
  spiritual benefit offered by Christ.
• 16:06
  Yes, it revitalizes faith, assures of grace.
• 16:09
  But it's only received through faith.
• 16:11
  The recipients disposition is key.
• 16:13
  Absolutely no faith, no benefit. It depends entirely on the
• 16:17
  Spirit working through the Word and sacrament upon a receptive
• 16:20
  heart. Hashtag tag Heg.
• 16:22
  This Winglian view. Finally, this Winglian view
• 16:25
  named after Ulrich Swingley, the Swiss reformer.
• 16:27
  This view pushes furthest in the direction of symbolism.
• 16:30
  Right. For Zwingli, the presence is
• 16:32
  understood primarily as commemoration, a memorial meal.
• 16:35
  The elements bread and wine are seen as mere symbols or
• 16:38
  representations of Christ's body and blood which are in heaven.
• 16:41
  So Christ isn't specially present in the elements
• 16:43
  themselves, any more than He is present when believers gather
• 16:46
  anyway. Generally, no.
• 16:48
  The focus is on remembering Christ's sacrifice.
• 16:51
  His spiritual presence is with the gathered church, yes, but
• 16:54
  not uniquely located in the bread and wine.
• 16:56
  OK. So if it's primarily a memorial,
• 16:58
  what about the efficacy? What does it do?
• 17:01
  It functions mainly as a visible proclamation of the Gospel, much
• 17:04
  like preaching, and it's an occasion for believers to
• 17:06
  publicly profess their faith. So the value isn't in the
• 17:09
  elements or even a special spiritual influence through
• 17:12
  them. No, the value lies entirely in
• 17:16
  the believer actively remembering Christ's death and
• 17:19
  receiving its benefits through responsive faith.
• 17:22
  Faith is what connects the believer to Christ.
• 17:25
  The Supper is a sign reminder of that connection.
• 17:28
  The believer brings Christ to the sacrament through your
• 17:30
  faith, rather than the sacrament bringing Christ to the believer.
• 17:34
  That's a common way of putting this wingly in emphasis.
• 17:36
  Yes, it's an outward sign of an inward grace already possessed.
• 17:39
  Wow. OK, those are four very
• 17:40
  different ways of understanding what's happening theologically
• 17:43
  and metaphysically. And those differences inevitably
• 17:45
  spill over into how churches actually do the Lord's Supper.
• 17:49
  The practical questions. Right.
• 17:50
  Who can lead it? Who can take it?
• 17:52
  What bread and wine or substitutes?
• 17:54
  How often these become points of contention too.
• 17:57
  Hashtag tag, tag the proper administrator and sacerdotalism.
• 18:00
  First up, who gets to preside over the table?
• 18:04
  Scripture itself is pretty quiet on this, isn't it?
• 18:06
  We only see Jesus doing it in the Gospels.
• 18:08
  Yeah, not a lot of explicit instruction there.
• 18:11
  So the different answers really come down to whether a church
• 18:13
  holds to saferdotalism or not. Exactly as we saw, the
• 18:17
  traditional Catholic view absolutely requires an ordained
• 18:20
  priest because they believe the priest has the unique power to
• 18:23
  consecrate to cause transubstantiation.
• 18:26
  No priest, no sacrament. Pretty much.
• 18:29
  But the Lutheran view, while holding to physical presence,
• 18:32
  rejects sacerdotalism. It's Christ's word and promise,
• 18:37
  not the administrator status that makes Christ present.
• 18:40
  So for Lutheran's a pastor normally presides, but it's not
• 18:44
  because he has some unique power.
• 18:46
  Correct, and then you have some non liturgical traditions that
• 18:48
  might say almost any spiritually qualified Christian can
• 18:51
  administer it as long as they follow the right form.
• 18:54
  And where does the Reformed tradition typically land?
• 18:57
  Well, understanding the Supper as an ordinance given to the
• 19:00
  church, there's a strong sense that it requires good order.
• 19:04
  It shouldn't be done haphazardly.
• 19:06
  So leadership oversight is important.
• 19:08
  Yes, typically it's seen as proper for the duly ordained or
• 19:12
  appointed leaders of the church, the pastor, the elders to
• 19:16
  oversee and conduct the service. The pastor leads may be assisted
• 19:20
  by elders or deacons who meet the biblical qualifications.
• 19:24
  That's the common practice. It reflects the seriousness and
• 19:27
  the corporate nature of the sacrament, ensuring it's done
• 19:30
  decently and in order. As Paul would say, hashtag tag
• 19:33
  prerequisites for recipients. OK, what about who can receive
• 19:37
  Communion? We agreed earlier.
• 19:39
  It's for believers capable of discerning the meaning.
• 19:41
  Yes, that's the baseline. Genuine faith, ability to self
• 19:45
  examine maturity. But different groups add other
• 19:48
  requirements, don't they? These are often points of
• 19:50
  division. They are some insist on a
• 19:52
  specific form of baptism first, either infant or believer's
• 19:55
  baptism. Or require formal membership in
• 19:57
  that specific local church or denomination.
• 19:59
  Yes. Sometimes there's a minimum age
• 20:01
  requirement tied to the ability to understand, and in some
• 20:05
  circles, particularly those emphasizing real presence, you
• 20:08
  might be required to believe in that specific doctrine of
• 20:11
  presence to partake. Fencing the table based on
• 20:14
  doctrinal agreement about the supper itself.
• 20:16
  It happens, but the most universal requirement besides
• 20:20
  faith is probably moral readiness.
• 20:23
  Right. Virtually everyone agrees you
• 20:25
  shouldn't serve communion to someone known to be living in
• 20:27
  serious, unrepentant sin. It comes back to Paul's warning
• 20:31
  about partaking unworthily. It demands self examination,
• 20:35
  perhaps confession, maybe even fasting in some traditions to
• 20:39
  prepare your heart. And historically, the big
• 20:41
  prerequisite debate was about the cup, right?
• 20:44
  Huge issue during the Reformation.
• 20:46
  The Catholic Church withheld the cup from the Lady for centuries.
• 20:50
  The Reformers insisted that everyone received both bread and
• 20:52
  wine, just as Christ instituted it.
• 20:55
  Communion in both kinds became a hallmark of Protestant practice.
• 20:58
  What about the actual bread and drink?
• 21:00
  Does it have to be exactly what Jesus used?
• 21:03
  That's the core question. Are we aiming for strict
• 21:06
  duplication of the Last Supper, or is suitable symbolism the
• 21:09
  goal? If it's duplication, then it has
• 21:13
  to be unleavened bread because it was Passover.
• 21:15
  Right, an actual wine, probably diluted as was common.
• 21:18
  That, but if the goal is symbolism.
• 21:19
  Then leavened bread might be fine, perhaps even better,
• 21:23
  symbolizing the one loaf of the unified church Paul talks about.
• 21:27
  And grape juice might serve just as well as wine to represent
• 21:31
  Christ. Bloodshed for sin.
• 21:33
  So the guiding principle becomes, does the element
• 21:36
  suitably convey the meaning? I think so.
• 21:39
  The focus should be on the symbolism of Christ's body,
• 21:41
  broken and bloodshed, and our unity in Him.
• 21:44
  What about the cup? Paul says one loaf, but he
• 21:47
  doesn't say 1 cup. Does everyone have to drink from
• 21:49
  a single chalice? There's no command for that.
• 21:52
  Well, a common cup emphasizes unity, practical concerns,
• 21:55
  hygiene. Large crowds mean that using
• 21:58
  individual cups doesn't really compromise the core symbolism.
• 22:01
  The unity is in the partaking together, not necessarily the
• 22:05
  vessel. And what about substitutions if
• 22:07
  you can't get bread or wine? Generally you stick to bread and
• 22:10
  the fruit of the vine if at all possible, but if they're truly
• 22:13
  unavailable, maybe in a very remote or restricted context.
• 22:16
  Like a mission field or a prison camp.
• 22:18
  Exactly. Then using local equivalents
• 22:21
  that represent basic food and drink, like water and fish or
• 22:24
  rice and tea might be permissible as an emergency
• 22:26
  measure. The key is conveying nourishment
• 22:29
  and sacrifice. But you shouldn't substitute
• 22:31
  just for kicks like cola and potato chips.
• 22:34
  Definitely not. That's substituting for novelty
• 22:36
  or convenience, and it completely loses the connection
• 22:39
  to the original symbolism of body and blood sacrifice and
• 22:42
  sustenance that seems to trivialize the ordinance.
• 22:45
  Hashtag, hashtag, the frequency of observance.
• 22:47
  Last practical point How often should churches observe the
• 22:51
  Lord's Supper? Weekly.
• 22:53
  Monthly. Quarterly.
• 22:55
  Annually. It's interesting scripture gives
• 22:57
  no explicit command on frequency 0 didactic statements telling us
• 23:01
  do this every X days. So churches have to figure it
• 23:04
  out using wisdom and biblical principles.
• 23:07
  Right. And it involves balancing those
• 23:08
  two psychological factors we talked about earlier.
• 23:10
  OK, refresh me factor 1. The need for enough frequency.
• 23:14
  We need it often enough to keep the core truths of the gospel.
• 23:17
  Christ's death, our reliance on Him consciously in front of us
• 23:21
  to counteract our natural drift and forgetfulness.
• 23:24
  If it's too rare, it becomes an historical footnote rather than
• 23:27
  living truth. Precisely.
• 23:30
  But factor 2 is the need for reservation.
• 23:33
  Maybe don't do it so often that it becomes routine, commonplace.
• 23:37
  Trivial, like checking a box without thinking, which violates
• 23:41
  the command to self examine. Exactly.
• 23:43
  If it becomes just another part of the Sunday routine, like the
• 23:46
  announcements, it loses its power and significance.
• 23:49
  So finding that balance is key. What's a practical way forward?
• 23:53
  Many churches find a good balance by making it available
• 23:55
  frequently, maybe monthly, perhaps even more often in some
• 23:59
  settings, but emphasizing that the individual believer should
• 24:03
  determine how often they partake based on their own spiritual
• 24:06
  preparedness and desire. So it's offered regularly, but
• 24:09
  participation requires conscious decision and self examination
• 24:12
  each time. It seems wise.
• 24:14
  It respects both the need for regularity and the seriousness
• 24:17
  of the act. And maybe the setting matters
• 24:19
  too. I think it does, given the
• 24:21
  supper its own distinct time, perhaps even the separate
• 24:23
  service occasionally, rather than just tacking it on to the
• 24:26
  end of a sermon that highlights its significance.
• 24:29
  It requires people to make a definite choice, to stay, to
• 24:32
  participate, to focus. It encourages intentionality,
• 24:36
  which is crucial for meaningful observance #outro.
• 24:40
  So, wrapping this all up, the Lord's Supper.
• 24:43
  It stands on a firm foundation. Christ established it, commanded
• 24:46
  its repetition, made it a proclamation of the gospel that
• 24:50
  unites Christians broadly. Yeah, the what and why are
• 24:52
  pretty clear. But then the how?
• 24:55
  Specifically, the nature of Christ's presence.
• 24:58
  That's where the paths diverge dramatically from literal
• 25:02
  physical transformation and transubstantiation.
• 25:04
  To the Co presence of Luther's. View to the dynamic spiritual
• 25:07
  influential presence emphasized in the Reformed tradition.
• 25:10
  All the way to the primarily memorial or symbolic
• 25:13
  understanding in the Zwinglian view.
• 25:15
  For distinct attempts to explain those simple words, this is my
• 25:19
  body. And realizing how much you know,
• 25:21
  background philosophy like Aristotle, substance and
• 25:24
  accident shaped of debate is, well, it's eye opening isn't it?
• 25:28
  It helps you understand why they argued the way they did.
• 25:31
  It does. It wasn't just arbitrary
• 25:32
  disagreement. And hopefully, understanding
• 25:35
  that history helps us approach the right today with more
• 25:37
  insight. The ultimate goal, surely across
• 25:41
  all views, is to stir up our faith, our love, our gratitude
• 25:45
  as we contemplate Christ's death and his promise to return.
• 25:48
  Amen to that and notice in the Reformed and Zwingli and views
• 25:51
  particularly the emphasis is on the believers faith being
• 25:54
  active. The danger isn't so much getting
• 25:57
  the philosophical definition slightly wrong.
• 25:59
  As it is taking the elements lightly, without faith, without
• 26:03
  self examination, without discerning the Lord's body.
• 26:06
  That's the real peril Paul warned about.
• 26:08
  So maybe the final thought for you, the listener, is this.
• 26:11
  How does knowing this history, knowing these different attempts
• 26:14
  to understand presence and efficacy, shape yourself?
• 26:17
  Examination next time you come to the table.
• 26:19
  Are you focused on the physical elements themselves or on the
• 26:22
  spiritual reality? They point to your union with
• 26:24
  Christ, the sealing of His promises, the nourishment of
• 26:27
  your soul through faith. Let that reflection deepen your
• 26:29
  wonder. Maybe bring to mind those words
• 26:31
  of Charles Wesley. Amazing love, how can it be that
• 26:35
  thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
• 26:37
  That's the truth. That's the love we remember and
• 26:40
  proclaim until He comes.